It's difficult to take this fellow seriously. Guys like Sullivan live in a 2d cartoon world of stereotypical villains and boogiemen (Dick Cheney! Koch Bros! Neocons!) and valiant heroes (Obama!, Hillary Clinton!) with little nuance or semblance of reality.

Considering that not only Hagel, but Sullivan himself, was in favor of the Iraq War at the time it was launched, that takes some chutzpah (if Hagel will allow the term). I guess Andrew, not living in DC, doesn't count as one of its "lemmings and partisans."

Hagel went on to denounce the surge as "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in American history since Vietnam." No doubt he couldn't say that "invading Iraq" took pride of place there, given that he'd voted for it himself, and Senators are really, really bad at mea culpas. But still. There are a lot of blunders in that time-frame.

I do not appreciate the emotional, ad hominem "chickenhawk" talk. Serving in the military, or serving in the military in combat, should not be a tool with which to flog one's political opponents.

You'd think people like Sullivan would've tired of seeing conservatives criticize President Obama's own decision not to serve in the military, or a little further back, President Clinton's lack of service.

It's great that Senator Hagel served in combat. But there are individuals just as qualified, if not more so, who have not served a day in uniform.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hagel and the continued weakening of our foreign policy, Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform our country. After all, he is just doing what he was raised to do and that is destroy a country he was taught by his fellow traveler mother and socialist father to despise.

I remember Sullivan supporting the war up until the insurgency started. I also remember him being vaguely sane and amusing right up until the Texas sodomy case. Then he went batshit insane and hasn't looked back.

What all these revisionists about the Iraq War never discuss are Bush's options after 9/11.

We were in Saudi Arabia, which was creating problems, like 9/11 itself, and we had two options. Leave Saudi and let Saddam do as he pleased, or invade. The blockade was not tenable, mostly because the political left was supporting him and trying to end the embargo. Remember the self created "hostages?"

Paul Wolfowitz got himself into a lot of trouble by telling the truth. Iraq could not be sealed off because it "sits on a sea of oil." The Russians and the French were getting rich by smuggling stuff to Saddam. Us troops found a BILLION DOLLARS in cash hidden in one of his son's houses.

I think Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld were right when they wanted to go in and smash the china and leave. At the time, I thought Iraq was the best chance for a modern Arab state. Obama has ended that possibility by pulling all the troops out after we took the casualties.

Hagel will support Obama's pro-Muslim Brotherhood agenda. That's all he wants. If Israel gets nuked and the middle east blows up, we were warned.

Obama might eventually be done in by his own hubris, I hope. For more info about Hagel see quote and link below.

"The former editor of the Omaha Jewish Press recalled that “Hagel was the only one we have had in Nebraska, who basically showed the Jewish community that he didn’t give a damn about the Jewish community or any of our concerns.” Another community leader commented that “During his last year in office, we knew he was not going to run again, he never returned any of our calls.”"

Sullivan's writing makes me think: All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis

"Tens of thousands (well over a hundred thousand) of dead might agree."

I call your sacrifice, and raise you the four million Saddam killed in his illustrious career which only ended because we made that sacrifice, and his numbers would have easily outstripped the war by now.

Whether that trade off was worth it or not can't even be discussed unless people face both sides of the equation, and admit they are willing to accept their call's sacrifice.

I have to admit that my preference for the war might have changed if I had anticipated the foul level of partisan abandonment of the cause both during and after by the left. There is no success in any endeavor that the left can't find a way to crap on until the positives are buried under a pile of hateful partisanship.

They voted for it to appeal to voters, then fought against it's success the whole time, then when it was won despite them, they tried to claim credit for ending it. A despicable trajectory personified by Obama who's advice was to give up, but who now credits himself with winning it.

Palladian said..."This is the kind of writing that Sullivan expects people to pay to read? It's barely at the level of a mediocre lefty blog commenter! "Lemmings"? "Neocons"? Really?"

I don't like the inherent mixed metaphor of "lemmings" and complaining about a failure to "call out." How are lemmings supposed to call out? If you're going with the lemmings, you need to say they jumped off a cliff or whatever it is these poor, much-maligned animals are supposed to do.

Didn't Sullivan actually, you know, SUPPORT the Iraq war? Or am I misremembering history?

Paul's memory is dead on. Andrew Sullivan was as hot for Saddam's head on a platter as he is for shirtless musclemen on Gooseberry Beach. Sully soured on the war when it became clear that GWB wasn't keen on gays in the military.

Does that make Sully just another armchair general? Or a war criminal?

Hagel voted for the Iraq War. By late 2003 he had become fed up with the Neocons, the Bremer decisions, and how a quick in and out "cakewalk war" had become an interminable adventure in imperial overreach.He was consistent from 2003 on that Iraq was a fiasco.

Eevn the "Surge" was little more than a face-saving effort. Instead of the noblepurple-fingered Freedom LOvers!! of Iraq spitting on us and tossing shoes at our backs as we headed out via Jordan and Turkey....we lost Iraq to Iran's sphere with more dignity..

It's kind of a tiresome circuit that the Hagels and Fukuyamas trace: for muscular interventionism (Korea, Haiti, Iraq etc.) until one that doesn't work so well (Vietnam, Iraq etc.), then isolationism until the aggression of our enemies mounts to intolerable levels (hostage crisis, 9/11 etc.), then back to interventionism. Hagel is probably too old to get through a whole nother cycle, but Fukuyama has plenty of time.

1. He feels Hagel has given him the proper sort of foreign policy advice in the last 4 years that has worked out well for America.2. He feels that Hagel, along with a few pundits like George Will - have intellectually changed since the Iraq/Afghan nation building debacles and can give Obama moderate and conservative cover about more Neocon adventures.3. Hagel is in a better position to sell the defense cuts that Obama wants than putting a liberal Democrat in DoD.4. Hagel is able to stand up to the Israel Lobby's money and intimidation tactics.

"Obama's secondary motive is to remind the world of Islam that he stands with them on the matter of Israel and other matters"

The transformation of our country continues cheered on by the liberals and the liberal media and they accuse those of us who resist and fight back as being lemmings. I'm thinking this is yet another example of liberal projection.

call your sacrifice, and raise you the four million Saddam killed in his illustrious career which only ended because we made that sacrifice, and his numbers would have easily outstripped the war by now.

Holy Kow! How did you come up with the 4 million number? Even if you are counting the Iraq-Iran war, that's surely less than 1/2 million, no?

I too have to admit that my preference for the Iraq War might have changed if I had anticipated the incompetent level of disregard that Bush would have for everyone other than his neo-con echo chamber.

I don't know if we would have succeeded or not if the Bush Administration hadn't been so god-awful arrogant, but I was a supporter up until it became clear the Bush administration believed that since we won the cold war we didn't have to respect anyone else's view and we could handle it all just fine on our own.

He [William Cohen] decided to scale back purchases of jet fighters, including the Air Force's F-22 Raptor and the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, as well as Navy surface ships. The review included cutting another 61,700 active duty service members — 15,000 in the Army, 26,900 in the Air Force, 18,000 in the Navy, and 1,800 in the Marine Corps, as well as 54,000 reserve forces, mainly in the Army National Guard, and some 80,000 civilians department-wide. Cohen also recommended two more rounds of base closings in 1999 and 2001.

It is my belief that Hagel, Hillary, and Kerry encouraged the insurgency in Iraq when they quickly became critical after voting for it initially! The Senate insurgency was of course led by the Lion, Ted and of course little Harry chimed in as well! I don't remember if Harry voted for it.

You know, Hagel, Kerry and Hillary were all, like Andrew the Shrew, for it before they were against it!

phx said... I was a supporter up until it became clear the Bush administration believed that since we won the cold war we didn't have to respect anyone else's view and we could handle it all just fine on our own.

Riiiiiiggggghhhhtttt!

It was so "clear" too! I mean, Bush made all sorts of statements suggesting this, there was no allied support, and all the rest.

BarryD said...The Iraq War may have been a mistake from the get-go, and there may have been mistakes in its prosecution. Maybe we should never have gone to Iraq at all, just kept bombing the place like Clinton.

Be all that as it may, "Catastrophe" isn't a particularly credible term for it.

------------------It was, if not a catastrophe, a debacle that greatly helped Iran and the US Democrat Party. And helped cast the Republicans as the party - not that avoids or gets us out of war - its 50 year reputation since Korea - but as the Party that thirsts for longer wars and more wars.

It was, if not a catastrophe, a debacle that along with Bush's other reckless spending and unfunded new programs and more bennies for Hero Rich Jobs Creators (who created no jobs in return for their huge tax cuts) - positioned the Republicans as the fiscally reckless Party in thrall to a few rich people.(Iraq was the 1st war that Americans were not asked to pay for...instead the 1.2 trillion was somehow going to be paid for by the Rich Hero JObs Creators "growing the economy".Like jobs and more jobs!! = that didn't happen.)

As an addendum to my comment above:I am hardly an armchair warrior so from my perspective as a former solder, one of basic questions was always this: is THIS the hill you want to die on. Very few hills met that criterion.

It was, if not a catastrophe, a debacle that along with Bush's other reckless spending

Quite simply, we went to war because we listened to the Chuck Hagels of the world, but we won the war because we ignored the Chuck Hagels of the world. What in that sentence identifies Chuck Hagel as a good person to listen to on defense issues? :)

You ever have a friend who likes to suggest a group activity and then complain about the activity once it has started? Chuck Hagel's that guy.

The funny thing is that Obama thinks hagel isThe most acceptable nominee. Really?

If he thinks somehow electing a republican will inure him from any sequestration damage becauseHe's a republican, he's very much mistaken.Jews don't like this guy, conservatives don't like this guy and gays don't like this guy.Why not piss off a few more special interest groups while he's at it.But to all Jews who voted forObama and also believe in Israel (there are many lefty Jews who in fact don't), here's what Obama REALLY thinks of you.Duped!

Even after reading the comments I'm still not sure about the commentor's reference to the "dead." During Saddam's long reign before the first Iraq War? During the first Iraq War? After Saddam was left in power after the first war? During the 2nd war? After the 2nd war up until now? Why are certain kinds of critics always vague? Answer: It's difficult to debate ambiguity. They hide behind hazy implication.

In recent years, starting I think with Vietnam and the left's phony concern for the "people of Vietnam," a new factor of using the misery of defeated populations as a propaganda point against the US has embedded itself. So we see comments, articles, op eds and all the MSM implying(or outright declaring) that we should all feel guilty about war, especially the ones we win. Unless a lefty is in power then not a peep.

The way I see it is that the Iraqis allowed themselves to be governed by Saddam. By this acquiescence they caused much harm. Harm to innocents in Iraq such as the children and to the women who are virtual slaves in the Islamic societies. It is regrettable that anyone had to suffer, Americans included, but a nation lives(or dies) based on who the nation's population allows to govern. They need to choose more wisely in the future. Maybe someone who will not invade neighboring oil-rich allies of the US. Or practice genocide. Or salt away 500 metric tons of yellowcake.

The choice of Hagel means we're going to bomb Iran.

Yeah, eventually. After Hagel and Obama assure by their foolishness that Iran nukes up, creating a nuclear race in the Middle East, and the inevitable nuclear terrorism event in the US that will follow the nuking up of several rogue Islamic nations – yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the US bomb Iran along with any other rogue nation that might have supplied the nuke.

Bob, sorry but you are igoring the history of levees in the Revolutionary war, the 1st income tax in the Civil War, the 16th Amendment passing to help pay for WWI, and of course FDR not only jacking up income tax rates at the start of WWII, but also starting witholding taxes in 1943 on all paychecks.And Truman and Eisenhower kept the taxes high for almost 15 years after WWII was done to help pay for the debt.Somehow, the rich "jobs creators" accepted their responsibility, paid, and still saw the US economy and jobs creation proceed at a spectacular pace. Bush, Obama, and to some extent Reagan were all fiscally reckless.

May the "no drama Obama" title forever be laid to rest. The man is a drama junkie. The fiscal cliffs, no attempt at anything resembling bipartisanship, the search for nominees that neither party supports. So many people he could have chosen, such as Bob Kerry, if he really wanted an injured Vietnam vet. Not to mention he was an moh winner and just lost an election. So why Hagel? Why the hell not. Obama hasn't anything else going on until the spending crises in mid February.

C4 sometimes makes arguments that, agree with them or not, at least force me to think them through.

But then he goes off the rails as in this thread. Two things C4, adding Hero to any group for which you seem to have contempt has gotten really really old.

Second so has the antisemitism. Compared to all the other countries in the region, what have we lost to the Israeli lobby that you want regained. Not just a litany of bias on your part, but tell us exactly what you hope the US will gain by standing up to the Israel lobby. I'm seriously curious.

1st - the practice of propagandizing certain people by the State goes back to WWI - when the Germans called all their soldiers and sailors Heroes. They laid it on thick - hero sausages only hero soldiers could eat, heroes only brothels, special hero only cemeteries.The Soviets then did it with Stakhovites and other communist exemplars, secret police, neighborhood watch informers, communist teachers to the kids as The Heroes!!Just be wary when people like Bush, teachers unions, TSA staff - declare heroes by job category.

As for Israel - my main beef is that it and a few other crappy little countries in the ME have sucked up an inordinate amount of US money and diplomatic time since 1972.Fine if we had copious resources and enough national focus to engage in assiduous diplomacy with major nations instead of begging Bibi, Yassir, etc to be nice and we will give them all sorts of goodies....but we really don't. We have neglected other regions far too much and squandered over half our military and civilian aid in 3-4 crappy little countries.

I wonder if you ran a straight up poll of the American people, asking them something to the effect of: Should the desires and views of the people who advocated for invading Iraq be taken into account in the selection of the Sec Def?

Whether "yes" would even break single digits.

An interesting belief, considering that Hagel's one of the people who so advocated. :)

The Hero argument is just defection. I don't recall you ever playing the WWI/soviet union link before and I really don't see where that connects with your use of the term with first responders and "job creators"

As to the other, it begs the question. What other regions would you have the US pay more attention. And why would Hegel's nomination further that?

There are exactly 375 people who are legally responsible for sending us to war with Iraq. Chuck Hagel is one of those 375.

So yes, it is "pretty bad" if you think the Iraq War was a bad idea. And since you consider speaking on behalf of the war -- something tens of millions of Americans did -- to be a deal-breaker, you must logically consider the act of actually *sending* us to war to be worse.

"And Truman and Eisenhower kept the taxes high for almost 15 years after WWII was done to help pay for the debt."

If we eliminate the federal programs created in after their presidencies (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education, department of education, enviromental agency, department of energy), then we can start paying off the debt right now.

That vote you speak of was a blight on the country. The media shilled like crazy for the war--every cable news network ran montages of scary music, pictures of Saddam wielding a rifle, etc. It was all so very epic, that drumbeat.

So no. I'm not concerned with what happens to Hagel one way or the other. But I am sure as hell not concerned with what the neocons think about him. Or about anything else, for that matter.

Although I admit, it is sort of entertaining watching John McCain and Lindsay Graham and Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer and Weekly Standard editorials and all the rest, still caterwauling about foreign policy. Insisting they be taken seriously.

Yes, Sullivan did shill. Who denies this? I am not even sure that Sullivan himself denies it. What a fucking waste of life it all was. And here you all are going on and on with the gotcha of "Sullivan was for it too!"

Well, Christ. At least a few people realized they were wrong, eventually. That's better than a guy like Kristol, who still says the same bullshit on television, always with that "nailed it" expression afterwards. I mean, it really looks to me like commenters here think that the neocons were right all along about Iraq. Which, to be far, does have a measure of comedic value.

There is something to admitting mistakes, even horrible ones. I will therefore grudgingly give Sullivan and Hagel their little due for that.

Policy on war and peace is made in the White House and Congress. The Pentagon's job is to carry it out, which means that the Secretary has to be able to work with the military personnel he is supposed to lead.I do not think the military is going to either like, fear, or respect the former Senator Hagel.

There was always the option of continuing the "no fly zones", and redistribution schemes such as "oil for food", which benefited everyone from the bureaucrats at the United Nations to Hussein and every opportunistic parasite in between.

Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran, having served in the United States Army infantry from 1967 to 1968. Holding the rank of Sergeant (E-5), he served as an infantry squad leader in the 9th Infantry Division.[10] Hagel served in the same infantry squad as his younger brother Tom, and they are believed to be the only American siblings to have done so during the Vietnam War.[11] They also ended up saving each other's lives on separate occasions.[11] While serving during the war, he received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, two Purple Hearts, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.[12]

Although I admit, it is sort of entertaining watching John McCain and Lindsay Graham and Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer and Weekly Standard editorials and all the rest, still caterwauling about foreign policy. Insisting they be taken seriously.

You forgot to mention Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. :)

She and her hubby spent years beating the "oh noes, Iraq has WMD" drum, particularly when it served as a distraction from his sex scandal.

What they ought to do is put Rumsfeld in there and invade somebody. How unreasonable of Obama not to act like a full-on Republican with his cabinet appointments! (rather than a half-on Republican, as is the case with Hagel)